I clearly stated my opinion. Where did I tell Brian his opinion never mattered? Did you miss where I said I don't like going in circles? All throughout this thread, most of us have been repeating ourselves. I like to agree to disagree with people when we debate and repeat the same things over and over again without getting anywhere. I'm sorry if you're insulted by that.
Please re-read what I wrote. I said I found the the way they were going about the PROJECT stupid. It's my opinion. Never did I call anyone who disagreed with me stupid. Don't put words and hidden meaning into my posts, please.
Brian responded to my question in regards to Marvel in DCA, and I replied. Are you going to express how you feel Marvel fits in DCA, or are you going to continue to make up things I never said?
Seems you think I jumped to conclusions, but as a great American philosopher Buffy Anne Summers once said, "I didn't jump. I took a tiny step, and there the conclusions were." As you are the original author and the only one who knows the true intent of your words, I will honor that, but say that they may be somewhat open to a poor interpretation. (Others, feel free to chime in if I am wrong, though if there are any who agree with me I'd prefer they stay quiet as I don't ever want to gang up on an individual poster.)
If your mind can't be changed then there's nothing to do BUT go in circles until everyone agrees with you. I've posted a lot this past week on how I think Mission Breakout could fit in DCA- sometimes in replies to your own posts. Dismissing them doesn't mean they didn't happen. As I said, I tried humor to keep things light, but that didn't mean I wasn't making points.
The Hollywood Tower Hotel had it's life cut short both in real life, and in it's own story. Certainly it wasn't going to sell due to it's history and being haunted. So whoever would take over such a place is bound to be eccentric. Can it not be imagined that this is the same building, now under new management? (Perhaps this will be part of the new ride's story, who knows- there's bound to be a few nods at least.)
Speaking of Hollywood, what's more California than that? Well, Marvel studios is the biggest Hollywood success story since Pixar. Sure it's not "classic" Hollywood, but then again, neither is the animation building. Marvel: "It's hip. It's now. It's wow. And how." (To quote some other great American thinkers.) Is the park only about what's historically relevant to the region? Because history is written every day- it's nostalgia that takes time. Is it about culture? Because superheroes are part of our culture even if you're not a fan. Some characters live in California, others have been a real-world tradition of hanging outside the Chinese Theater for photographs.
Maybe Avengers Infinity War takes place in California. Maybe the Guardians actually end up prisoners in a tower, in Hollywood, that was once struck by lightning. Would it be then be OK if there was movie canon to back the premise up? Would it be even better if they showed a first draft script where this idea was floated years before the overlay, making it less of a shoehorned in idea? Though saying so does diminish the legitimacy of theme park storytellers by putting cinema on a higher level.
And as we already went back an forth on this, I don't see how must remain in Hollywood Land. Even now it's just Hollywood adjacent. Why can't it be annexed into it's own thing even if it's just a small thing for now? Or they can revert to the backlot theme, in which case this is just a giant set.
Ever heard of California Crazy architecture? It's what got us giant donuts and hat-shaped buildings- so why not a building that looks like a giant circuit board? (homage to Silicone valley?) California has also had it's share of real eccentric millionaires who built some pretty odd stuff. California also has many industrial buildings. And prisons. Why can't the less attractive parts of the state get some theme park representation?
Many have said, good or bad, it draws the eye. Like a big wienie. Who liked using visual pulls to move the crowds? (or for some guests, visual deterrants)
Some will never believe that the TOT was anything less that a classic- nor that it didn't meet expectations from both a general audience perspective and a corporate one. Sure they could have done some tweaks, but how much would it cost and would it really make a difference past a season? Here we have a property that seems to be on the rise and looks to have some legs. Here we have an opportunity to look beyond an everyday elevator, and push the ride system to deliver more. Yes, merchandise. Yes, movie tie-ins, not only with Guardians, but all of Marvel in the form of the Collector's displays (always something new to look at.) Yes, multiple soundtracks, multiple ride profiles, multiple pipes on the exterior. Yes, synergy, synergy, synergy. Yes, cool new lighting package. Yes, to something less horror themed and thus, more family friendly. Yes to kids saying "I Am Groot" repeatedly in line. Yes, Joe Rhode. You've heard of killing two birds with one stone, well I think for the board that approved this, they saw a whole flock going down with a single green light.
I'm sure these aren't the best points, but 90% of this post is more for my own amusement and to hopefully pull some others out of the dreck that is Disney Parks discussion. I'm not trying to change your opinion and we've likely gone full circle again. Anyway, I don't wish to argue with you. We're clearly here for different things and I don't want to ruin your time here. I thought I loved the parks, but these forums make it frequently clear that my opinions will lead to its undoing (should probably sell that stock then.) I get the passion, but I don't get the rigidity. Flexible things last. Rigid things break. I had some fun going back and forth with others here, and I'm sorry you got caught up in it.
See: 
